These appeals arise from a common judgment rendered in three appeals by the Additional District Judge, Thodupuzha, which in turn, arose from the common judgment in three suits rendered by the learned Sub Judge, Kattappana.

2. Three suits, O.S.No.118 of 1996, O.S.No.129 of 2001 and O.S.No.130 of 2001, in which, common questions of fact and law arose for adjudication, were jointly tried by the learned Sub Judge, Kattappana. O.S.No.118 of 1996 was a suit for declaration of title and injunction. The plaintiffs in that suit are the appellants in R.S.A.No.666 of 2007. They have preferred the above appeal challenging the dismissal of their suit O.S.No.118 of 1996 after it being confirmed by the lower appellate court dismissing their appeal, A.S.No.2 of 2002, by the learned Additional District Judge, Thodupuzha. These appellants have filed another suit as O.S.No.130 of 2001 in respect of the very same subject matter covered by O.S.No.118 of 1996, in which a decree of injunction was applied for against the common 1st defendant but, with two others as co-defendants. The common 1st defendant in the above two suits O.S.No.118 of 1996 and O.S.No.130 of 2001 had filed the other suit O.S.No.129 of 2001 in which, the plaintiffs in the above referred two suits and their vendors were the defendants. The plaintiff in the above suit had claimed the identical relief canvassed in O.S.No.130 of 2001, a decree of injunction, and the subject matter of both the suits were the same.

3. In O.S.No.118 of 1996 the two defendants therein filed separate written statements, but the 1st defendant, who was the plaintiff in the connected suit, O.S.No.129 of 2001 and the 1st defendant in the other suit, O.S.No.130 of 2001, in her written statement over and above disputing the decree for injunction claimed by the plaintiff raised a counter claim setting forth her title and possession over the property described in the written statement seeking declaration and possession over the same and for removal of a shed from that property alleged to have been unauthorisedly put up by the plaintiffs in the above suit. To that counter claim, the plaintiff in the suit had filed a written statement disputing and traversing the claim set forth by the 1st defendant and her entitlement for the decree canvassed for.

4. In brief, the case of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.118 of 1996 was that they have obtained title and possession over A, B and C schedule properties under three separate sale deeds executed by one Ramalakshmiammal, who got right over the property by a sale deed from two persons namely, Annamala Chettiyar and Subramanya Chettiyar. The 1st defendant is the owner of the eastern property and the 2nd defendant the owner of the western property and both of them are making attempts to trespass into the plaint schedule properties was the case set up seeking declaration of title and possession of the plaintiffs and for injunction against the defendants in respect of the suit properties. The contention of the 1st defendant was that neither the plaintiffs or their predecessors got any right over the property under the sale deeds taken by them. Her case was after she obtained title and possession over 11.03 acres of land situate on the extreme east of the plaint survey number under two gift deeds executed at different points of time by her father and grand father, the 2nd defendant trespassed upon a portion of such property having an extent of 4.38 Acres. This defendant set up a counter claim for title, possession and injunction over ‘Y’ schedule in her written statement and sought for removal of shed from that property. To the counter claim set up by the 1st defendant the plaintiff in O.S.No.118/96 filed a written statement reiterating the case canvassed in his plaint and disputing whatever right claimed by the 1st defendant over the properties scheduled in her written statement.

5. The two suits O.S.Nos.129/01 and 130/01 as seen from the judgment of the Trial Court were re